"Submitted by truthout on December 30, 2006 - 12:04pm.Hot Topics
I have been banned at Democrats.com because of posting Youtubes about AIPAC and their illegal influence on the United States of America (AIPAC is not required to register with FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, like all other foreign lobbies are). I have been banned whether it is in the public forum (where the topic really belongs) or whether it is posted in the quarantine area of Democrats.com, the so-called "I/P" Israel/Palestine topic forum (where the discussion really does not belong, because AIPAC is not solely about I/P influence, it is also about using AMERICAN soldiers to die for their causes and wars, such as the Iraq War and the almost Iran War). I have also been banned at Democratic Underground, not just for posting AIPAC Youtubes in their new Video Forum, but even when posting these Youtubes in their quarantined "I/P forum" . This makes me highly suspicious of BOTH Democrats.com and Democratic Underground. There appears to be a very close relationship with Democrats.com and Democratic Underground as they both seem to know each other and also have the same rules about quarantining people into a very seclusive area of the discussion board in "I/P forums".

Why can't Americans speak openly and freely at supposedly "democratic forums" at Democrats.com and Democratic Underground about AIPAC without being quarantined, sanitized, censored or secluded into some far-off un-related I/P forum when the subject at hand is so vital to American National Security? Does Democrats.com and Democratic Underground have something to hide?

There appears to be a very close relationship with Democrats.com and Democratic Underground as they both seem to know each other and also have the same rules about quarantining people into a very seclusive area of the discussion board in "I/P forums".

and why does that bother him? What is with people that go to multiple forums and then complain about one forum on the other forum. That is like going to one persons house and then going to another and complaining about the one you just left.

There appears to be a very close relationship with Democrats.com and Democratic Underground as they both seem to know each other and also have the same rules about quarantining people into a very seclusive area of the discussion board in "I/P forums".

and why does that bother him? What is with people that go to multiple forums and then complain about one forum on the other forum. That is like going to one persons house and then going to another and complaining about the one you just left.

Not good and shows a lack of Internet smarts.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with that etiquette, DK, but this is wartime and these are not knitting circles. There appears to be McCarthyism going on about speaking up about AIPAC on these supposedly "democratic" sites... if we can't openly talk about the AIPAC causing the spillage of our American soldier's blood for Israel's agendas, what then, can we talk about?

Why do these sites delete AIPAC Youtube posts and send them off in un-related "Israel/Palestine forums" outside the realm of general discussion about the Iraq War? (Posters really have to dig to find the "I/P Forums" at Democrats.com and Democratic Underground).

Yank...I was once a member of a forum that had private rooms that were for Democrats Only, Repubs Only, Independents Only, etc. When I registered, I had to declare my political affiliation in order to access the room of my choice. Because there were more dems than repubs, there were lots of discussions going on that wouldn't have been suitable for the open forum, up to and including much talk about Israel and how the Bush government seemed to be unable to say NO to the Israeli government.

If you read Jesse's blog, you'll note that he's adamently against Israel's being so influential on American politics and policies. I'll have to familiarize myself more with AIPAC...sorry I don't know more about it.

But why you can't discuss that topic at what are obviously democratic sites is a mystery. It's a bit like at POAC where they had the PLUGS forum and the description of that forum said to plug another site if you think it's a good one. (or something to that effect) When some of us plugged some good democratic discussion sites, we got the boot!

Do you suppose those sites are fearful of Homeland Security? Perhaps the feds have given those site owners some trouble that they're just not making known to the general membership.

_________________

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help. That other party, they work for people who don't need help. That's all there is to it."~Harry S. Truman

Yank...I was once a member of a forum that had private rooms that were for Democrats Only, Repubs Only, Independents Only, etc. When I registered, I had to declare my political affiliation in order to access the room of my choice. Because there were more dems than repubs, there were lots of discussions going on that wouldn't have been suitable for the open forum, up to and including much talk about Israel and how the Bush government seemed to be unable to say NO to the Israeli government.

If you read Jesse's blog, you'll note that he's adamently against Israel's being so influential on American politics and policies. I'll have to familiarize myself more with AIPAC...sorry I don't know more about it.

But why you can't discuss that topic at what are obviously democratic sites is a mystery. It's a bit like at POAC where they had the PLUGS forum and the description of that forum said to plug another site if you think it's a good one. (or something to that effect) When some of us plugged some good democratic discussion sites, we got the boot!

Do you suppose those sites are fearful of Homeland Security? Perhaps the feds have given those site owners some trouble that they're just not making known to the general membership.

Catherine, my suspicion is much worse than Homeland Security. I suspect these "democratic" forums may have a more monetary reason, same way Hillary and Pelosi does, ... The behavior when anyone says anything about Israel and AIPAC on these two sites is beyond bizarre, its McCarthyistic. Plus you gotta go through several "clicks" to get to their "authorized I/P forums" , they really put you way out in the cornfield!

I will start an AIPAC thread at the PNAC forum... there are just tons of informative Youtubes out there (without having to read a bunch of stuff!)

AIPAC are behind the PNAC in America and the IASPS in Israel.

I know from reading Jesse's stuff he knows all the background info on Israel and AIPAC and the march to the IRAQ WAR (using American soldiers)

...when Wolfowitz tried to to grill him with the same bs. Carter has more credibility in his little toenail than these zionist proxies.
As a life long, dues paying, cash contributing, volunteering, 95%-98% voting loyalty, Democrat, and a Jew, I interpret this post as racist.

2. "Zionist Proxies" is unadulerated racism. I do not use "Trinitarian" or "Devout Chriostian" as a term of disapproval. This little anti-Semitic shaygitz-goy is no better that former Senator George "Macaca" Allen or Dennis Prager or Virgil Goode or Glenn Beck (re: Keith Ellison).

I realize you are trying to clean up DU and rehabililtate DU's image. Teryang does DU's image no good.

"...Criticism
Democratic Underground has been criticized for censorship directed against both the political left and the right. From the left, critics say that administrators and moderators unfairly ban ("tombstone") or censor members who support the Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party and other parties to the left of the DNC. Right leaning Democrats, or those who support the Iraq War are often disparaged by DU posters. The People for Change forum was founded by Howard Dean supporters who felt alienated from Democratic Underground during the 2004 primary season, many of whom had been banned from the Democratic Underground forums. Some DU members claim that the moderators of the Israel-Palestinian forums enforce an anti-Palestinian bias. [citation needed]

Two posters to Democratic Underground are being investigated by the Secret Service for posts that, according to David Allen, violated the DU policy stating "Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president or other high-ranking official in the United States government." [2] Neither the comments nor the poster's identities are public knowledge, but David Allen said that both members had been banned prior to DU being notified of the investigation, and that no subpoenas have been issued to date.[3]..."

As a Reform Jew who supports both Israel’s right to exist and a two-state solution, I have long disliked AIPAC. AIPAC does not represent my views, that of the majority of American Jews, or Israelis. Rather, AIPAC seems to be little more than an extension of the Likud Party in Israeli and its supporters here. (I recall a story on an effort of progressive Jews to start an alternative to AIPAC, and I will try to post on that.)

I have heard the claims that Israel and Zionists or Jews in general are behind the war, and reject these claims. I will present some documentation for these claims, but I would argue that what we have seen for some time is an alliance of neo-conservatives in various countries. They share a vision of transforming the world on the lines of their philosophy and are prepared to use military force and deception to do so. In this, they differ little from some of the fanatics who are targeting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they share a belief in a vision that justifies any actions.

I must also address a disturbing problem on the left, a tendency to blame Israel, Zionists, and Jews for all the woes of the Middle East and the world. (I am not accusing anyone here of this, but the phenomenon does not exist.) I have seen Zionism be equated with racism and Nazism. I believe that this is wrong, and if we fail on the Left to address bigotry in our own midst, we become as guilty of condoning it as some have condoned racism and homophobia on the Right. (Here are some links from http://www.mideastweb.org, a site run by Israeli and Palestinian peace activists. Zionism: http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm. Jews, Jewish Religion, anti-Semitism the Talmud and Zionism
Sense and Nonsense about Jews and Jewish Belief: http://www.mideastweb.org/jewreligion.htm. For an example of racism, kindly read the charter of Hamas, and explain why a state where non-Muslims are reduced to dhimmi status and contains anti-Jewish quotations should not be treated any differently form Mein Kampf: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm) Indeed, there have been mistakes and wrongs committed by Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighbors in the long conflict. I would argue that there are claims on each side, but that demonizing any side is a tactic that we should oppose. It does nothing to advance peace, and seems either to be an exercise in self-righteousness or furthering the conflict to achieve a desired end. Indeed, I see very little difference between someone who calls for the Palestinians to be expelled from the West Bank and Gaza and those who call for Israel to be dismantled and its citizens pushed into the Mediterranean.

At the same time, I refuse to participate in any call to silence debate. First, the way to debate a bad idea is to present arguments and facts. Mind you, you may not convince the other party, but you will gain far more sympathy for your views than trying to silence anyone. (This is one of my problems with the Daily Kos. Regardless of one’s views on 9/11, I think people should be free to discuss the issues and their interpretations. Too many good people have fought and died for my rights to dismiss their sacrifices or my civil liberties.)

First, let us examine the accusation in its base form. I am going to site an article from http://wwww.tikkun.org, an organization of spiritual progressives led by Rabbi Michael Lerner. I am going to include Tikkun’s response to an article from someone who has written for Tikkun Magazine in the past.

James Petras writes a scathing analysis of the Zionist role in creating the war in Iraq. It is a position with which we disagree, but it needs to be understood and challenged. We in Tikkun who support Israel (and Palestine, and universal human rights) opposed the war, and one of the many reasons was that we saw this kind of blaming of the Jews as inevitable. Now it is starting and we should be prepared. The article below does NOT represent the thinking of Tikkun Magazine or The Tikkun Community. In fact, it is antithetical to the way we approach politics in general. But it is representative of a dangerous tendency in the Left--to blame the war in Iraq on Zionists--and therefore something we should be aware of and prepared to engage in public debate. The writer is a respected thinker, and someone who has published in Tikkun magazine. But the form of his agrument here involves the kind of guilt by association that is extremely dangerous: the Jews in the Bush Administrations who were both Zionists and pro-invasion of Iraq are the proof that the war was a Zionist war, and because the war was not successful in regard to its other stated goals then the only remaining goal for which it was successful, elimination of an enemy of Israel, becomes on Petras' reasoning the actual motivation for the war. This is as reasonable as saying that the reason for the Fidel Castro-led conquest of Cuba was to impose a dictatorship that would be homophobic and denying of human rights (because in fact these were among the outcomes of the struggle). Or to argue that the goal of the Russian involvement in WWII was to expand its control over the world, using opposition to Hitler only as an excuse. What Petras does is to oversimplify reality to a point where he can find one evil force that is motivating a complex reality, rather than seeing the often contradictory elements in a given situation and how they play out.

One of the journalists whom I respect for his investigative reporting is Greg Palast, who has looked into the accusation of the war in Iraq being a Zionist plot: I am going to include the first two and the last two paragraphs here.

Quote:

http://www.gregpalast.com/was-the-invasion-of-iraq-a-jewish-conspiracy#more-1433Was The Invasion of Iraq a Jewish Conspiracy?Published by Greg Palast June 26th, 2006 in Articles Tikkun Magazine JULY/AUGUST 2006Did the Jews do it?The US Congress will open hearings this week on the War in Iraq — a wee bit late one might think. But one question at the forefront of the minds of many on both the Left and the Right is sure not to be asked: Did the Jews do it? I mean, after killing Jesus, did the Elders of Zion manipulate the government of the United States into invading Babylon as part of a scheme to abet the expansion of Greater Israel?The question was first posed to me in 2004 when I was speaking at a meeting of Mobilization for Peace in San Jose. A member of the audience asked, “Put it together — Who’s behind this war? Paul Wolfowitz and Elliott Abrams and the Project for a “Jew” American Century and, and, why don’t you talk about that, huh? And…”

………………………………….

Finally, on March 16, 2005, second anniversary of the invasion, neo-con leader of the pack Wolfowitz was cast out of the Pentagon war room and tossed into the World Bank, moving from the testosterone-powered, war-making decision center to the lending office for Bangladeshi chicken farmers.“The realists,” crowed the triumphant editor of the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, “have defeated the fantasists!”So much for the Big Zionist Conspiracy that supposedly directed this war. A half- dozen confused Jews, wandering in the policy desert a long distance from mainstream Jewish views, armed only with Leo Strauss’ silly aphorisms, were no match for Texas oil majors and OPEC potentates with a combined throw weight of half a trillion barrels of oil.**********Investigative Reporter Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats,Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child’s Behind Left and otherDispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War to be released next week in United Kingdom and Ireland by Penguin UK, from which this essay is adapted.

Uri Avnery, a veteran Israeli peace activist and founder of Gush Shalom, has commented on the Israeli-American relationship and its complexities. I should point out that I have seen numerous articles in Israeli publications where other authors have suggested that Washington, D.C. controls Israel’s foreign policy.

At the basis of the phenomenon lies the uncanny similarity between the two national-religious stories, the American myth and the Israeli. In both, pioneers persecuted for their religion reached the shores of the Promised Land. They were forced to defend themselves against the "savage" natives, who were out to destroy them. They redeemed the land, made the desert bloom, created, with God's help, a flourishing, democratic and moral society.Both societies live in a state of denial and unconscious guilt feelings - over there because of the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the horrifying slavery of the blacks, here because of the uprooting of half the Palestinian people and the oppression of the other half. Both here and there, people believe in an eternal war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.ANYHOW, THE American-Israeli symbiosis is unique and far too complex a phenomenon to be described as a simple conspiracy. I am sure that the two professors did not mean to do so.The dog wags the tail and the tail wags the dog. They wag each other.

Daniel Levy, an Israeli writer and diplomat who has appeared on the Al Franken Show, also comments on this. He is a Senior Fellow of the New America Foundation and negotiated on Israel’s behalf at the Taba negotiations in 2000 and was the lead Israeli negotiator of the Geneva Intiative, a private document proposing a path to peace signed by leading Israeli and Palestinian politicians. His bio is at http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_levy. Here are two articles of his and I will be quoting from near the end of each article.

Quit the Canard That American Policy Advances Israeli SecurityBy Daniel Levy, New America Foundation The Forward | August 25, 2006The idea that current American policy advances Israeli security and national interests is thoroughly discredited -- something that is now openly aired in the Israeli media, and raised, albeit in more discreet circles, by Israeli Cabinet ministers. Iran has been emboldened and regionally strengthened, the growing Israeli debate on possible dialogue with Syria is cut short by "Washington will say no" reminders, and the much-needed international encouragement for renewing a political process with the Palestinians to replace the unappealing options of unilateralism and stagnation lacks American leadership.It may be awkward, even counter-intuitive, but Israelis and Americans who care about Israel need to find a way to spit out the words that those in the administration who can perhaps still be convinced need to hear: "You may indeed think you're being terribly supportive of Israel, but, uh, actually it isn't going so great. That clash of civilizations thing, well eventually your 130,000 troops will go home and we'll be left carrying the can. What we really need is serious, unwavering diplomatic engagement, perhaps an envoy, and broaden the circle of folks you are talking too, 'bad guys' included. Maybe re-launch a peace process worthy of the name, even a regional Madrid-style conference -- just try it."Just in case that does not work, a parallel effort must be put into building common approaches with internationalist Republicans and anti-war Democrats, with the aim of creating a shared agenda of stability building and conflict resolution in the Middle East. The threat of an anti-Israel populist and isolationist backlash may well exist, but so too does the opportunity to ally with the Iraq-war skeptics in navigating regional policy away from its dangerous and failed current trajectory.Of course, there is always the no-think option: continuing the politics of intimidation, merrily counting the co-signatories on meaningless 'pro-Israel' congressional resolutions, and embracing the apocalyptic vision of a 100 Years War in the Middle East that so threatens Israel's well-being. Israelis today do not have the luxury of indulging arrogant fantasies. Neither, I would suggest, do our American friends.

Levy also has an article with a great title that calls for people to oppose a neo-conservative agenda in many countries that has lead to war and suffering. In this, those on the Left may find allies in many places. It is going to take a lot to unravel the neo-con agenda and its disastrous policies --- here and abroad.

Israel does have enemies, interests and security imperatives, but there is no logic in the country volunteering itself for the frontline of an ideologically misguided and avoidable war of civilizations. So what should be done, on both sides of the ocean? It is admittedly difficult for Israel to have a regional strategy that is out-of-step with the U.S. administration-of-the-day. However, the neocon approach is not unchallenged, and Israel should not be providing its ticket back to the ascendancy. A U.S. return to proactive diplomacy, realism and multilateralism, with sustained and hard engagement that delivers concrete progress, would best serve its own, Israeli and regional interests. Israel should encourage this. Israel may even have to lead, for instance, in rethinking policy on Hamas or Syria, and should certainly work intensely with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in encouraging his efforts to reach a Palestinian national understanding as a basis for stable governance, security quiet and future peace negotiations. A policy that comes with a Jerusalem kosher stamp of approval might be viewed as less of an abomination in Washington. Beyond that, Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest "pro-Israel" lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances. Internationalist Republicans, Democrats and mainstream Israelis must construct an alternative narrative to the neocon nightmare, identifying shared interests in a policy that reestablishes American leadership, respect and credibility in the region by facilitating security and stability, pursuing conflict resolution and promoting the conditions for more open societies (as opposed to narrow election-worship). The last two years of the Bush presidency can be an opportunity for progress or an exercise in desperate damage limitation. It sounds counter-intuitive, but Israel should reflect on and even help reorient American expectations.

I would argue that we need to have a reorientation in foreign policy and domestic policy, both here and abroad. As for AIPAC, as I stated previously, I do not trust it or the Likud or the current incarnation of the GOP. However, I think we need to be careful not to paint anyone who supports Israel's right to exist with the same broadbrush as AIPAC.

...I have heard the claims that Israel and Zionists or Jews in general are behind the war, and reject these claims. ...

At the same time, I refuse to participate in any call to silence debate. First, the way to debate a bad idea is to present arguments and facts. I would argue that we need to have a reorientation in foreign policy and domestic policy, both here and abroad. As for AIPAC, as I stated previously, I do not trust it or the Likud or the current incarnation of the GOP. However, I think we need to be careful not to paint anyone who supports Israel's right to exist with the same broadbrush as AIPAC.

Will from Chicago, you have no idea what a relief it is to meet you! We agree on so much, that Likud is behind the Iraq War , and AIPAC, and PNAC, and the Neoconism of the current GOP in the American Administration... it is the same as it was in Nazi Germany, the real Nazis were not the common every day German folk, but they certainly had the German folk brainwashed, as Bushco has many Americans brainwashed and AIPAC has many Jewish-Americans and Israelis brainwashed for war instead of peace.

The conspiracy to start a war , however, did in fact get born in an Israeli think tank called IASPS by an American, Richard Perle. Perle wrote the first known "neocon" document to bring down Saddam Hussein and change the regime of Iraq called "A Clean Break". In July 8, 1996 Richard Perle delivered "A Clean Break" to Netanyahu. Incredibly, they still have the actual document on their own website to this day, here it is:

What is so confusing is how AIPAC "educates" Americans and American politicians and media... many Americans now know AIPAC has no business being a non-profit organization and should register as a foreign agent of Israel. AIPAC, PNAC , and IASPS were in fact behind the false intel to the road to the Iraq War... the AIPAC spies were caught taking Pentagon materials. AIPAC members are very worried that the spy case will force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, as frankly , they should:

"...Forcing AIPAC to register under the act, which has notoriously burdensome reporting requirements, would considerably restrict the group’s ability to lobby and maintain its formidable reputation for secrecy..."

I strongly support discussion of Likud /AIPAC influence and frankly, conspiracy with the Bush Administration to start the Iraq War... we all know by now it was not because of 9/11 or WMD.

I know much about the Neocon/Likud evidence in this regard because of all the research I have done, however I know much less about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Naturally, since American lives are at stake, I am more concerned with the Iraq War at this time. This does not mean, however, I do not want to learn about the other issues as well. It's just that America's democracy is at stake at this moment with the Neocons in the GOP, and unfortunately, a few are in the Dems as well...

Will, evil men in the Likud and evil men in Bushco have joined forces and it is called NEOCONISM... we peace-loving people have to find a peaceful way to stop these warmongers. Please read what Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote:

For whatever reason, the current United States and Israel are not considered truly democratic by the rest of the free world, so we have to face the fact that evil men in both these nations have joined forces and when we stop being in denial about United States and Israel collusion to start the Iraq War, then we as good people can work on stopping the evil
of the Iraq War.

I'm sure it is the Neocon's ulterior motive, just as with the Nazis, to keep us all confused and in fear of each other at all times! As with the Mafia, I think of AIPAC that way, which certainly has nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of Italians or what religion they are.

My argument with sites like Democratic Underground is that you can't discuss anything about Israel or AIPAC at all without being deleted and censored, called names like "anti-Semitic" or banned altogether for (God forbid) questioning the DU moderators about why they are censoring that issue!

It makes me wonder why they even have a site if they are going to make so many rules to make sure you don't talk!

I think making it only one group that is behind everything is a bit simple. Here is the problem and the peril. As I see it, we have parties of like minded individuals, some here, some in Israel, and some elsewhere who find themselves with a convergence of interests and are working with each other. So, busting the Likud alone won't do it. We have to address the problems of our own neo-cons, so do the Israelis, and so do others in their own countries.

It would seem that we have twin perils, neocons across the globe who want to remake the world and some Islamic extremist groups that wish to do the same. I think we have to be careful to separate the leaders of governments and movements from the peoples of their respective countries -- lest we use a broad brush that is undeserved and feeds into needless hate of peoples and nations. Indeed, I would argue that both the neocons and the radical Islamic groups like al Qaeda want to fuel hatred, as they need it to advance their agendas. So, avoiding demonization of any side in the Middle East conflict -- Israelis, Palestinians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Arabs, Iranians, Americans, and the rest -- is perhaps crucial in moving forward to solutions that are mutually acceptable. I have heard Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, and I am aware of the reception they get from the hardliners in their respective societies. Their courage must be commended.

I think you can see how the PNAC would reach out to like minded [url]individuals in the Likud and elsewhere. Not even all of the Likud, but the hardline faction. I can see how Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would find ideological ground with Benjamin Netanyahu and his close allies. The way I see it, the PNAC sought out allies, and can find them. (A good beginning place for learning about the PNAC is [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century[/url]. What I think rather than a grand single conspiracy, we have like minded groups reaching out to each other -- pursuing their own goals but cooperating in key areas.

I would argue that Israel and the United States are democratic, but have problems. All countries have problems. We have a free press here, and the Israeli press is quite active --- and more willing to criticize government leaders than our press corp. So, I think what people need to do here and abroad is to reclaim their governments at the ballot boxes. At the same time, I fear that the neocons have only served to make the threat of radical Islamic groups worst.

Similarly, we must remember and let the world know that there are Americans, Israelis, and Britons who oppose the neocon agenda to establish a Straussian paradise for the few. (Heck, if you have listened to Randi Rhodes on Clean Break, you should know that there are those in the Likud who want an end to Labor Zionism. (Heck, I can even give you a website for Progressive Zionists.) Thus, they seek to redefine Zionism from the desire of the Jewish people for a national homeland to an expansionist policy. (I don't have a problem with people wanting a homeland. I respect the rights of Israelis for one, and the right of the Palestinians for one. Indeed, I would argue that the hardliners on both sides of the Green Line have more in common with each other than moderates or liberals in their own respective populations.) I would argue that the goals of the neo cons are fairly easy to understand -- create an empire to transform the world. I have to reject the neo con vision of empire as readily as I reject Osama bin Laden's call for a new Islamic empire

MidEastWeb.org, a site that serves as a common ground for several Israeli and Palestinian peace activists. It has a wealth of articles and opinion pieces, but someone I know and respect has called it the closest thing to a Wikipedia to learn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Go to http://www.mideastweb.org.

There are also many projects working for peace among Israelis and Palestinians, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projects_working_for_peace_among_Israelis_and_Arabs. For myself, I believe in dialogue, as different people will have different perspectives on issues. To me, the war in Iraq is essentially a PNAC plot, but the PNAC reached out to like minded individuals to help make it happen. However, I have faith in democracy, here in the U.S., in Israel, in Britain, and throughout the world. So, I think we may well see the downfall of the neocon rise to power that marked the beginning of this century.

There will have to be a lot of work in the next several years to address the damage that the neo cons have done to the United States and the region. However, I have faith that people want changes that will lead to understanding and peace. It will take hard work, but it must begin with honest and open dialogue. So, take heart. Even in this troubled time, there are those who are trying to repair the hurts of our world. We are not as alone as we sometimes fear.

I view the NeoCONS and Al Quaeda as more similar than different... they are both terrorists, they are both shadow governments, and they both use "charities" to do their fund-raising for them. To me they are just a larger more sophisticated version of the street gangs the Bloods and the Crypts. Unfortunately, when PNAC and Al Quaeda do their "drive-bys" more innocent people get hurt.

I view the NeoCONS and Al Quaeda as more similar than different... they are both terrorists, they are both shadow governments, and they both use "charities" to do their fund-raising for them. To me they are just a larger more sophisticated version of the street gangs the Bloods and the Crypts. Unfortunately, when PNAC and Al Quaeda do their "drive-bys" more innocent people get hurt.

Edit to add: The rest of us are just in the way!

They both tend to see the world in terms of absolutes, have a vision of remaking the world that many do not support, and try to hold themselves up as the true defenders and followers of their belief systems -- American democracy in one case and Islam in the other. Yet, their actions and doctrines seem to contradict with the noblest traditions of a political system or a faith.

April 14, 2006 — Disinformation and controlled opposition. No sooner had former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel announced his presidential bid yesterday, the always reliably despicable Democratic Underground launched attacks against Gravel claiming he was affiliated with a holocaust denial group. This is so typical of DU and its affiliates, the traitorous American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and AIPAC’s media censorship group, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). DU is all about one thing — containing liberal and Democratic Party attacks on America’s jaundiced Middle East policies and hyping pro-war, neo-cons candidates in the Democratic Party like Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton. It would be nice to see a full accounting of DU’s donors. Note to DU: the attacks on Gravel won’t work. Even AIPAC recognized Gravel as having a more pro-Israel voting record in the Senate than AIPAC’s most reliable supporters — Senators Jacob Javits of New York and Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut. In the late 1970s, Gravel was opposed to the delivery of advanced U.S. military aircraft — including F-15s and AWACs — to Saudi Arabia while Javits and Ribicoff broke with their friends and favored the sales. DU and their neo-con friends at the Democratic Leadership Council and their moles within the Democratic National Committee will not succeed in demonizing the senator who defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case, the senator who ended the draft, the senator who took on Nixon on Vietnam and Watergate, and the man who was the first to take on The Carlyle Group and its Democratic neo-con managing director David Rubinstein. Come to think of it, perhaps DU would want to make public any contributions from Rubinstein or other Carlyle employees or entities.

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.COM

Perfect Together

Postscript: It did not take long for DU to post propaganda decrying the generals who are demanding Rumsfeld’s resignation. One poster’s take on the generals (and this posting is prominently featured): they are cowards for not speaking out earlier. Note to the neo-cons at DU: the flag ranks did speak out and many were summarily fired. The names Shinseki, Byrnes, and Karpinski obviously mean nothing to these agents of disinformation and agents provocateur who masquerade as liberal Democrats. DU — you’ve been exposed!..."